Thoughts on Adverbs

[CrystalD]

I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer to this, and it depends on what your writing style is. Of course, you don’t want to lean on any verbage too much, but I find myself using it when there is no other way to describe something. There’s also a time where you just want to use it to give xtra description, like wanting to write what someone is doing with specifics. A good example is just writing “She walkked to the store” - if you want it to be more obvious how she’s walking, you’d maybe want to use an adver like “She walked slowly to the store.” but once again, depends on how your writing style works. I’ve never noticed the dreaded ly words in books I’ve read, so I have a feeling it’s more on the editing side of things that it’s a big deal, and not so much readers.


Iwill say, that personally I prefer when I nail a certain scene with better descriptors. It doesn’t feel lazy using an adverb to me, but being able to visualize an action a character is taking by using a verb like “He snapped, she sauntered” feels better to me while writing. But once again, it’s totally subjective and goes form writer to writer, so I’d say the blanket advice of Don’t do it! Is a bit off. If someone can make it work, then more power to them.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

The trouble isn't the adverb, per se, it's that adverbs tend to be a precursor or indicator of poor writing. The key element to me, that is missing in those stats, is how the adverb is used. In dialogue or not? And are they run-of-the-mill adverbs? Weak adverbs, and higher quality adverbs. Adverbs involving time tend to be more acceptable. Are they in dialogue tags? On and on.

From what I've read, King and Rowling use adverbs way differently. King is a superior writer in that sense, even if I don't enjoy his work. And Hemingway smokes them both.

EDIT: Personally, when perusing a book sample, if I hit a Badverb early it isn't going to keep me from reading further, BUT they tend to add up because the writer's other weaknesses are causing the adverb use. But there is a lot of nuance to this conversation that simply can't be gone into in-depth due to the format of conversation that surround the writer's voice and other factors.

I think these stats show that there is nothing wrong with adverbs as such from a reader's perspective. King and Rowling are some of the most popular writers out there. If they can have an adverb every 100 words then it's perfectly acceptible. It's all about your audience and how you use them.

The examples your editor gave are correct in my opinion when taken in isolation. "He said angrily" is better than “He spoke in an angry tone”, for 2 reasons: first, it says the exact same thing, with fewer words, which is almost always better. Second, he said is better than he spoke, since said tends to be more invisible to readers than spoke. The same with the flaccid, airy tone. Feebly is shorter, and easier for a reader to follow. Now, this doesn't mean that the sentence can't be even stronger when you drop the adverb and rewrite the sentence to show the character being angry. But that depends on the context.

Part of the dislike for adverbs indeed comes from show versus tell. An adverb tells you someone is angry or sad or whatever. That is indeed weaker than showing the same thing. Other times, there is a stronger verb than verb + adverb, which is both shorter and clearer about what's going on.

Having said that, sometimes it's perfectly fine to do so. A few reasons I can think of off the top of my head are:
- If showing would take a lot more words, and you want to keep the pace up, then go with the adverb.
- If you want to stress an emotion (or similar). Readers can be a bit oblivious (I know I certainly can be), and sometimes you want to spell it out that a character is angry or sad or whatever.
- If an emotion is not completely clear. It should be obvious, but sometimes it's hard to tell if a character is sad or angry or whatever. Yes, you could rewrite the passage to make it more clear. But that might take a lot of work, or it might not be how a character talks. In that case, the adverb can help.
- For flavor. If you always use the same sentence and paragraph structure, then your writing can start feeling monotonous and boring. Using a quick adverb instead of a longer character beat can change things up. It's like always use said when saying that a character is speaking, except for a few times in a chapter to break things up.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Interesting stat I'd forgotten: Faulkner's As I Lay Dying came in at 31 -ly adverbs per 10000 words. This is intriguing to me as Faulkner was a favorite of mine in college... maybe I've been an adverb hater all along, LMAO.

This also raises a point on King and Hemingway using adverbs... the number is an average, and in Hemingway's most acclaimed books, he (and others) used less than the average.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote 14 novels, and the 3 most acclaimed are also the 3 of his novels that use the fewest adverbs.

It is a fascinating and maybe not all that meaningful relationship, but it is fun. Oh! I had forgotten that the basic correlation holds up on goodreads, so not just with "literary" types when it comes to adverb count versus popularity in respect to a single author's books.

 

[Mad Swede]

I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying that adverbs (or adverbial phrases) are a sign of poor writing, more that they are a sign of inexperience. As we learn our craft we learn how to get the message across without overloading the prose. Too often those who criticise the use of adverbs come across as condescending idiots who are ignorant of when adverbs should be used - because adverbs have their place in good prose.

 

[pmmg]

I had 12 in 10000 words. Is that a lot, I dont know. So far the seem right, but they may not survive a rewrite.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

12 in 10k is low.

I had 12 in 10000 words. Is that a lot, I dont know. So far the seem right, but they may not survive a rewrite.

 

[Mad Swede]

12 in 10k is low.

Both I and my editor would say that is too low, certainly in a Swedish book. My editor would say (she's said it to me) that when you get that low then you may need to think about how readable your text really is. Adverbs have their place in prose, and I think that sometimes we lose sight of the need to use adverbs to improve the flow, pacing and impact of the story.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Inexperienced writing is pretty much poor writing. Adverbial phrases are a tad different depending on how you speak of them.

It isn't that you can't write great with plenty of adverbs, many old-time writers used them often. I would never say that Dickens is a sucky writer because of the number of adverbs he uses. His voice and his era finds it fitting. And having zero adverbs wouldn't make writing great. Oh, if it was only so easy. What I'm looking at are tendencies.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying that adverbs (or adverbial phrases) are a sign of poor writing, more that they are a sign of inexperience. As we learn our craft we learn how to get the message across without overloading the prose. Too often those who criticise the use of adverbs come across as condescending idiots who are ignorant of when adverbs should be used - because adverbs have their place in good prose.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Maybe in Swedish, but I will disagree 100% with that in English. I have no idea of Swedish adverbs, so I can't speak to that. A great book could be written with zero -ly adverbs. Zero adverbs would be trickier, but even that could be done.

Eve of Snows won major indie awards with an -ly adverb count in that area and I could edit out the adverbs in a blink and it wouldn't change a thing people would notice.

EDIT: In the first 10K plus of Eve of Snows there are 2 -ly adverbs (the checkers want to say 3, but unholy is an adjective, heh heh) and I could pinch them into dust and no one would notice they're missing. When I said I write with about 20 per 10k, I was being generous to the -ly adverb count, LMAO.

"what he really needed was a drink" — could be deleted with no harm done, or rewritten to be more fun
"the weather was unseasonably cold" — quick rewrite and gone

They can be used, but they just aren't necessary.

Both I and my editor would say that is too low, certainly in a Swedish book. My editor would say (she's said it to me) that when you get that low then you may need to think about how readable your text really is. Adverbs have their place in prose, and I think that sometimes we lose sight of the need to use adverbs to improve the flow, pacing and impact of the story.

 

[pmmg]

I would not call unholy an adverb. I have plenty of LY words, but they are not all adverbs. Does not matter, it is what it is. ATM, I think its plenty readable. I am not sure what I'd say to your editor if they said use more. They would have to justify that, with examples I would hope.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Unholily would be an adverb. In general, it's an adjective but for some reason, the checker catches it as an adverb. Hemingway app does not call it an adverb, Prowriting Aid does so in error.

As an aside, I started reading As I lay Dying yesterday and spotted zero -ly adverbs. It's been a long time since reading Faulkner... the man could write. Damn.

I would not call unholy an adverb. I have plenty of LY words, but they are not all adverbs. Does not matter, it is what it is. ATM, I think its plenty readable. I am not sure what I'd say to your editor if they said use more. They would have to justify that, with examples I would hope.

 

[Mad Swede]

Maybe in Swedish, but I will disagree 100% with that in English. I have no idea of Swedish adverbs, so I can't speak to that. A great book could be written with zero -ly adverbs. Zero adverbs would be trickier, but even that could be done.

Eve of Snows won major indie awards with an -ly adverb count in that area and I could edit out the adverbs in a blink and it wouldn't change a thing people would notice.

EDIT: In the first 10K plus of Eve of Snows there are 2 -ly adverbs (the checkers want to say 3, but unholy is an adjective, heh heh) and I could pinch them into dust and no one would notice they're missing. When I said I write with about 20 per 10k, I was being generous to the -ly adverb count, LMAO.

"what he really needed was a drink" — could be deleted with no harm done, or rewritten to be more fun
"the weather was unseasonably cold" — quick rewrite and gone

They can be used, but they just aren't necessary.

Yes, you could take out the word really from that sentence. But what you lose is that sense of desire, of need, almost desperation. In context that adverb might be just the word needed to convey the scene - and then you should use it. Sure, you could have some witty private eye monologue (or similar) using a metaphor or three to get the message across. But if the rest of the prose isn't in that style then it doesn't work. Same thing with unseasonably.

This is what I (and even more so, my editor) object to about some of the suggestions about adverbs. She is really clear about this, that adverbs should be used, because in the right context they convey a meaning and an immediacy you can't easily create in any other way without having an impact on the flow of the prose or worse still your own writing style.

 

[ThinkerX]

Okay, this got me curious enough to where I just went and used MS Words built in search function to track down 'ly' usage in my published books.

Empire: Country - 53,500 words, 410 incorporating 'ly'
Empire: Capital - 70,000 words, 634 incorporating 'ly'
Empire: Estate - 70,000 words, 714 incorporating 'ly'
Empire: Metropolis - 95,000 words, 1035 incorporating 'ly'
Empire: Spiral - 128,000 words, 1309 incorporating 'ly'

Considering that at least some of those 'ly' words are not adverbs (a few of them are proper names)... then my adverb usage looks to be around 1 word per 1000 words, and probably less. Not sure, but that's probably about the same usage as 'Eve of Snows' (from prior posts in this thread).

MS word also tells me that my usage of passive voice is right at 2%, and the 'readability level' hovers around 4.5, meaning that a bright 5th grader shouldn't have any difficulty understanding my tales.

 

[FifthView]

I wonder if the discussion would benefit from a steady stream of examples.

Some uses are worse than others.

Context does matter. Genre and intended audience matter as well.

I was just scanning an older thread looking at adverbs: Can we talk about adverbs? I don't think opinions have changed much since then? Heh.

There, I'd related the issue to POV also. Still feels right.

An -ly adverb introduces the question of who is making the evaluation. "He rose angrily." Okay, but who is making that assessment, that the guy is angry?

Suppose I'm writing in first person and I'm watching another character rise from the sofa. If I say he rose angrily...well, this is an interesting thing because the first person POV character doesn't have a direct window into the head of the other character. Maybe that rising man was just excited because the microwave dinged and food was done. But maybe the narrator is very perceptive or knows how to read this man because they've been friends for decades, and yes, the man is angry.

But suppose I'm writing in a close third limited. Then...who is making the evaluation that the man is angry? A narrator, obviously. This can be a lot like using the pronouns for a POV character, which the character himself wouldn't use when narrating the tale, but we overlook it as readers. To say that another character rose angrily might be a wall break, letting the true narrator step through the cracks, and be overlooked in a similar way. Or not. Genre and audience expectations make a difference here. I've maintained that Rowling's third limited is really almost a clever omniscient, and I think a lot of middle grade writing does this also. There's a helpful, present narrator making these evaluations for the kids who are reading. In a more adult-oriented novel, this might be an intrusion.

 

[Devor]

I wonder if the discussion would benefit from a steady stream of examples.

I just took a quick look at some of my writing. Apparently I use the word tightly a few times ("he tightly clenched the back of the chair..."). I also used finally a few times in dialogue.

Then there was this:

“I’m ready!” Tore whispered loudly.

Here the adverb is making a sharp contrast with how you would normally whisper. Another example of that, from the same scene in my writing, is Stones dropped from the map and clanged silently against the floor - since the stones are an illusion, they don't make noise.

Another way I find myself using adverbs:

Tore whacked the old man lightly on the arm...

His baton pointed nearly straight up....

The first of those might be another example of the contrast (whacked/lightly - Tore is a young child, that happens), but like with tightly above, these words are concepts that don't really have visuals or emotions, and just do what an adverb is supposed to: modify the verb.

But that partial endorsement of adverbs doesn't help much if I'm a crappy writer, so here's a quick sample from my first chapter:

The troopsman had puffed up his upper lip, perhaps hoping that breathing through his mustache would save him from her dusts. He scowled at the knight and for a second looked like he might spit at him. Then he grunted up at Aliffe. “So what is it with you fairies and our pride?”

“Ohh, pride is the most dangerous substance there is.” Aliffe shook out her lemon-lime hair, fluttered up to sit on the troopsman’s shoulder, and leaned her face into her right hand. “That’s why it’s so powerful,” she finished coyly by poking him lightly on the cheek, “when we turn it into magic.”

I chose this section because that last line gets a big response from readers - and there are two adverbs there, deliberately, because the cutesy sound -ly helps the language to set the tone.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I actually agree with both sides of the discussion. As my writing improves and I become more experienced, I notice that I use fewer -ly adverbs, and that my writing is better for it. There are often better, stronger ways of saying something than using a -ly adverb. Novice writers use them as a crutch, and their writing would be better without it.

"what he really needed was a drink" — could be deleted with no harm done, or rewritten to be more fun
"the weather was unseasonably cold" — quick rewrite and gone

However, I also agree with Mad Swede that they are a part of the language, and that they have their place. Yes, "what he needed was a drink" is a perfectly servicable sentence, and few people (if any) would care if it was that. But for me there is a difference in "what he needed was a drink" and "what he really needed was a drink". The one with the adverb has a stronger desire for the drink.

The thing is of course, that no one judges a book on one or two words somewhere. It's about the whole. About the author's voice. Some authors don't need many adverbs, while others do. While you can say what you will about King, there's no denying his writing is popular. And while some of the great English novels have few or no adverbs in them, that might also be part of the reason some people find them hard to read.

An -ly adverb introduces the question of who is making the evaluation. "He rose angrily." Okay, but who is making that assessment, that the guy is angry?

That always feels more like a grammer teacher or editor comment than a reader comment to me. As a reader I wouldn't wonder at all about who is making the evaluation.

In general I would advice a beginning author to not worry about adverbs all that much. Not in a first draft. Just write and if you think you need to use an adverb then do so. When you're just starting out, then you have other, bigger things to worry about than adverbs. Then when you edit, try to get rid of a few and notice how your writing changes because of it. As long as you try to improve then you'll naturally will find yourself using fewer as you write more.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I've avoided the adverb conersation... I mean, I'm trying to finish and polish an audiobook and it's a distraction, but! my brai wandered there for a second...

10k words is like 3 chapters of Eve of Snows, and I tried to imagine using 155 -ly adverbs in that space like 50 Shades.

I couldn't.

It boggles my brain.

 

[Malik]

The issue with adverbs is that there's often a better way to phrase something than using an adverb. There's almost always a stronger word. Find it.

I use adverbs a lot, BUT . . . I copped my adverb usage from comedians and comedic writers I enjoy, many of whom will use an adverb ahead of an adjective you don't expect for comedic effect.

George Carlin had a great line, I don't remember it precisely, but it was along the lines of "The more you talk to them, the more you find that most of the people you meet are intensely uninteresting." That, to me, is a brilliant usage of an adverb. I do this a lot. Probably more than I should. But then, Douglas Adams made a career out of it.

 

[Devor]

There's one more point I'd like to make, and this is advice that was given to me so long ago I can't remember where it's from.

If you're working with an editor, adverbs are extremely easy to fix. Writing that suffers from being too flat is not. So while you're learning to write well, it's better to try too hard, to push your language in too many places, or in this case to use the adverbs more freely, and to rely on a process that scales back later. After all, the only way to learn how to use an adverb well... is to actually use them.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

They are quick, and humor requires speed. But, that's mostly funny because I can see Carlin delivering the line, and that man was damned funny. One of the screenwriters I worked with at UCLA wrote K9 with Belushi, and he was an ex-standup comic. I wish I'd been working on my comedy Fruit Bat when around him and talked comedy more. He was a keen study on humor and the three acts of a joke, and we spoke once or twice about the difference between written and performance humor. Too bad my memory sucks, heh heh.

In general, most people use ordinary adverbs that you see all the time. "Intensely" is not uncommon, but when paired with an unexpected partner, "uninteresting", that's where the humor resides. So, in that respect this adverb/adjective tandem is effective. I'm guessing one could come up with dozens of these used in comedy with great effect.

Now, fornicate the penguin! That's funny. No adverb necessary, heh heh.

The issue with adverbs is that there's often a better way to phrase something than using an adverb. There's almost always a stronger word. Find it.

I use adverbs a lot, BUT . . . I copped my adverb usage from comedians and comedic writers I enjoy, many of whom will use an adverb ahead of an adjective you don't expect for comedic effect.

George Carlin had a great line, I don't remember it precisely, but it was along the lines of "The more you talk to them, the more you find that most of the people you meet are intensely uninteresting." That, to me, is a brilliant usage of an adverb. I do this a lot. Probably more than I should. But then, Douglas Adams made a career out of it.